I’m still trying to figure where I come down on this, but I’d say characterizing the Judge as a troll predisposes us to believe he should have been treated as he was. Am I hearing you say that his views and his activist MAGA-decision making calls for the response he got? I side with the way the piece was presented in the Bulwark. It does…
I’m still trying to figure where I come down on this, but I’d say characterizing the Judge as a troll predisposes us to believe he should have been treated as he was. Am I hearing you say that his views and his activist MAGA-decision making calls for the response he got?
I side with the way the piece was presented in the Bulwark. It does students good to listen and engage with the ideas presented. If they are able to do that, then I’d trust them more to be our next leaders, because we all know they will be. Listen and understand thoroughly, cogitate on it and then respond. Better yet, schedule a separate rebuttal. When we shut down what we don’t want to listen to, we deprive ourselves of effective understanding and (so to speak) weaponry.
Maybe he shouldn't have gotten the extent of the heckling he did, but I do recommend you read what the legal profession has been saying about the 5th circuit for a while now. Professor Stephen Vladeck has been good about this.
But yes, the 5th circuit has spent the past however many years acting like a troll circuit. In their rulings they act as if they are not bound by Supreme Court precedent because they don't care about being bound by precedent. They issue decisions going out of their way to grant Republican litigants everything they ask for, even if it's contrary to law and precedent. It's a very bad, very lawless circuit.
Also, I'm not sure it's worth it to spend the time/effort to schedule all of this to respond? While I agree that by unilaterally shutting down outside perspectives, we lose out, I don't agree that we should uncritically accept trolls and troll arguments for the sake of "understanding other perspectives." There's a reason we don't sit down and have a formal debate with every flat earther we meet. And I'd argue that that's an important thing for our next leaders to learn, though. Not just how to listen and engage with ideas presented, but also the wisdom to know when other ideas are presented in good faith (and should be engaged with) and when ideas are presented in bad faith only to get a rise out of the listener.
To bring back the example, our future leaders need to know that flat earth theory is wrong, but also that they don't need to approach with and engage every flat earth theory as if it were legitimate solely because it is a different perspective
I’m still trying to figure where I come down on this, but I’d say characterizing the Judge as a troll predisposes us to believe he should have been treated as he was. Am I hearing you say that his views and his activist MAGA-decision making calls for the response he got?
I side with the way the piece was presented in the Bulwark. It does students good to listen and engage with the ideas presented. If they are able to do that, then I’d trust them more to be our next leaders, because we all know they will be. Listen and understand thoroughly, cogitate on it and then respond. Better yet, schedule a separate rebuttal. When we shut down what we don’t want to listen to, we deprive ourselves of effective understanding and (so to speak) weaponry.
Maybe he shouldn't have gotten the extent of the heckling he did, but I do recommend you read what the legal profession has been saying about the 5th circuit for a while now. Professor Stephen Vladeck has been good about this.
But yes, the 5th circuit has spent the past however many years acting like a troll circuit. In their rulings they act as if they are not bound by Supreme Court precedent because they don't care about being bound by precedent. They issue decisions going out of their way to grant Republican litigants everything they ask for, even if it's contrary to law and precedent. It's a very bad, very lawless circuit.
Also, I'm not sure it's worth it to spend the time/effort to schedule all of this to respond? While I agree that by unilaterally shutting down outside perspectives, we lose out, I don't agree that we should uncritically accept trolls and troll arguments for the sake of "understanding other perspectives." There's a reason we don't sit down and have a formal debate with every flat earther we meet. And I'd argue that that's an important thing for our next leaders to learn, though. Not just how to listen and engage with ideas presented, but also the wisdom to know when other ideas are presented in good faith (and should be engaged with) and when ideas are presented in bad faith only to get a rise out of the listener.
To bring back the example, our future leaders need to know that flat earth theory is wrong, but also that they don't need to approach with and engage every flat earth theory as if it were legitimate solely because it is a different perspective